On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:41:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> Given the cat'ed Sources file I keep around for testing, we can get a
> list of packages that don't have build-depends: listed, but would need
> them by something like:
>
This isn't all that accurate. The autobuilder considers so
Hi Anthony,
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There are two flaws with this proposal. One is that it's completely
> wrongheaded to declare something RC when a significant number of packages
> don't do it already.
Yes, I agree with this now.
> The other is that it
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:06:53AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Current policy says:
> >
> > <-- snip -->
> >
> > `standard'
> > These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
> > character-mode system. Thi
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:49:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> <-- snip -->
>
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
>
> Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already.
>
> <-- snip -->
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 09:33:24AM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Wow! Thanks Anthony!
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Current policy says:
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> `standard'
> These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
> character-mode system. This is what will install by default if
> the user doesn't select anything
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 80343 wishlist
Bug#80343: general: Lack of policy on which files should be owned by which user
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> retitle 80343 [PROPOSAL] policy should say no files should be owned by
> "nobody"
Bug#80343: general: Lack of policy
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 01:31:30AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> However, the proposal already has a sufficiency of seconds -- more
> make no difference at this point.
What Chris said.
> Back in Feb, aj said there were 2047 packages still needing build-
> depends. If you want this proposal to tak
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:49:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
> Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already.
(Completely irrelevent, as aj noted.)
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
<-- snip -->
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already.
<-- snip -->
I second this. (but there m
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
>...
> Since there's a 'tetex' task, I've also dropped tetex from standard to
> optional: people who want TeX will need to choose the task now.
Current policy says:
<-- snip -->
`standard'
These packages provide a reasonably small but n
11 matches
Mail list logo
